Power Fog

1. What this pattern is

Power Fog appears in organisations where decision authority is distributed informally, inconsistently or opaquely. Titles, roles and reporting lines exist on paper, but real power flows through shifting relationships, moods or unspoken rules.

People operate in a haze where no one has full clarity on who decides, who approves, or who is accountable. Work happens, but not through structure. It happens through guesswork, negotiation and emotional navigation.

This creates a fog around power that makes execution slow, confusing and politically loaded.

2. How it shows up

• Decisions overturned without explanation
• People wait for “signals” rather than clear directives
• Roles overlap because authority is never explicitly defined
• Teams escalate to whoever seems most receptive, not the actual decision-maker
• Conflicting instructions from different leaders
• Delays caused by fear of making the “wrong” call

The organisation moves, but only through informal pathways.

3. What it is protecting (emotional logic)

Ambiguous power protects leaders from committing to decisions. It allows them to intervene selectively without taking responsibility for outcomes. It maintains relational flexibility and shields them from the discomfort of saying no, defining priorities, or being held accountable.

For the team, Power Fog protects psychological safety by preventing direct confrontation. If no one truly owns decisions, no one can be blamed for missteps. Ambiguity becomes the buffer between people and consequence.

4. What it costs the system

• Chronic decision paralysis
• Work that stalls because no one feels authorised to act
• High emotional labour as teams navigate unclear approval channels
• Accountability loops where everyone is responsible but no one is accountable
• High performers leaving because they cannot build momentum
• Organisational drift that feels like “busyness” without real progress

The system becomes active but ineffective.

5. Early signals to watch for

• People frequently ask “who is deciding this”
• Decisions bounce between leaders without resolution
• Different teams receive different instructions for the same issue
• Roles are described vaguely or inconsistently
• The safest option is always to escalate
• Meetings end with “we’ll revisit this” instead of decisions

6. Questions that expose the pattern

• Who actually makes decisions here, regardless of title
• Which decisions repeatedly stall due to unclear authority
• What instructions change depending on who asks
• Where are people hesitant to act because they fear overstepping
• What decisions do leaders quietly influence without formally owning
• How would work change if authority were named directly

7. What changes when you name it

Power becomes explicit instead of implicit. Decision rights are clarified. Teams can execute without fear of violating unspoken rules. Leaders become accountable for the authority they hold rather than the authority they avoid. Momentum increases because decisions stop drifting through informal channels.

Once the fog clears, the organisation can move forward with coherence rather than guessing.